Well rather than quote some percentage figures you could take the tack I did with the Che Guevara article and actually look at what negative things were covered. The sort of percentage system that Swindle used is highly misleading, nine sentences about why someone came to believe something followed by one sentence that says "but when he tried his ideas out they didn't work" does not give you a 90% positive article.
Looking at his comparison of Coulter and More based on the relative size of their "Controversy" sections, even a cursory look at the rest of the Michael More article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore#Career sees coverage of him dropping out of university, being fired from a job and an unsourced negative sentence that I've just removed. Size of controversy section is really not a good metric for comparing BLPs.
But going back to Che Guevara I think it is worth reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Che_Guevara#Using_Humberto_Fontova Our preference for reliable sources does make it difficult to cite certain other sources, and I can see how that leads Mr Swindle to consider Conservapedia an alternative. As someone who has held in my hand two million year old stone tools I think I'll stick with Wikipedia, but yes for anyone who thinks we don't need to worry about Greenland melting because "if the Ice caps melt more water will flow harmlessly off the edge of the earth" there is indeed Conservapedia.
Regards
WSC
On 23 August 2011 19:54, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011, Charles Matthews wrote:
But "bias" of the kind he works with is a really unhelpful concept for us, in practice: especially when trivialised by being "metricated".
What other way is there to claim bias than being "metricated"? Is he just supposed to give his subjective opinion, or just complain that a particular thing is being left out of the article?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l